[DCRM-L] a model ship

[Jessica Janecki]

To piggyback on what Julie said, I think your situation with the assembled and augmented model is rather similar to an extra-illustrated copy of a book. 9 times out of 10 I catalog an extra illustrated copy first as what the “base” book was and then add as many local notes and tracings as needed to explain the extra-illustration of our copy. However, sometimes institutional needs tip the balance and I need to catalog it as a manuscript or mixed material collection created by the extra-illustrator in order to emphasize their role. Also, occasionally the extra-illustration is so transformative that I need to emphasize the uniqueness and originality of our copy.

Jessica Janecki

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Julie Moore
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:57 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] a model ship

I am a generalist Special Collections cataloger, far away from the HMS Victory. As such, I would catalog it as the model from the manufacturer. That way, the MARC record is useable by other institutions in OCLC. You can always add local notes and added entries for your model assembler.

I would be very thankful that it came assembled!!! 🙂

Julie Moore
Special Collections Catalog Librarian
Fresno State
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 9, 2020, at 7:13 AM, Jane Wickenden <jane.wickenden at zen.co.uk<mailto:jane.wickenden at zen.co.uk>> wrote:
I'd be inclined to treat the kit originator as the main author and the model builder as an editor, the resulting Victory being a sort of "edition" of the kit.

But what an interesting thing to be cataloguing!

Jane
(who is across the harbour from HMS Victory the original)

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 14:48 Lapka, Francis, <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:
I have at my desk an assembled model of HMS Victory, similar to this: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/7688-shipyard-hms-alert-1777-196-scale-paper-model-kit/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__modelshipworld.com_topic_7688-2Dshipyard-2Dhms-2Dalert-2D1777-2D196-2Dscale-2Dpaper-2Dmodel-2Dkit_&d=DwMFaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=syBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw&m=Bl_TXkqOvaIv5MmHAR7okAzmEioCy0AlkBrBBJAz8EA&s=5D4Cb423ADToYzNqA5-cRAVro3uRJRec22w_qnLDCdE&e=>

I’m debating whether to describe it as primarily the work of the kit manufacturer (a Polish firm) or as the work of the local fellow who assembled it, with some modifications and supplements to the manufacturer’s design. Put another way: should I treat this as a multiple, or as a unique object? (If unassembled, the decision would be easy.) The decision affects a host of fields, including main entry, place, and date.

On a less complicated note: Does anyone know of an established relationship designator to convey the role of model maker? I haven’t found one.

I’m keen to hear your perspectives.

-Francis

(I recognize that this a special collections cataloging question, not strictly DCRM.)



Francis Lapka
Senior Catalogue Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
Yale Center for British Art
203-432-9672  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20200109/c429a58e/attachment-0001.html>